KEY POINTS:
Muslim-christian tensions are reaching uncomfortable levels in many parts of Australia. They have been fuelled considerably over the past weeks by impertinent comments by two Australian Muslim leaders and Prime Minister John Howard's address to a Christian group which is involved in an anti-Islamic court battle.
This month
Sheik Taj El-Din Hilaly was pilloried for saying on Egyptian television that Muslims are more entitled to be in Australia than Anglo-Saxons, who came here as convicts.
Even more offensive were the remarks by Sheik Feiz Mohammed, who is currently in Lebanon, that "Jews are pigs that will be killed at the end of the world" and that "There is nothing more beloved than wanting to die as a holy warrior".
The Prime Minister gave a recorded message to the Catch the Fire Ministries, which will be played at a prayer meeting on Australia Day, in which he praises the group and other Christian denominations for their contribution to Australian society.
Influential Australians have been so incensed by the comments of the sheiks that they have urged them to not bother coming back to Australia.
Some Muslims have accused the Government of blatantly supporting Christians, while vilifying Muslims.
Regrettably, as is often the case with religious issues, passion seems to have trumped logic. Yet these incidents can assist the community to draw a line regarding the limits of free speech.
The first point to note is that the Prime Minister and the sheiks did not do anything which directly harmed another person. On a scale of harm, it is far less damaging to say something than to actually inflict direct harm on others.
A robust right to free speech is a key to advancing the social and moral health of the community.
The benefits of free speech were nailed by the late 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill, who said: "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error".
To reap the benefits of free speech we have to be particularly tolerant, allowing loopy views to be aired, and not seek to always punish those who make unpopular comments.
The best way to neutralise misguided and extreme views is to douse them with copious amounts of realism, to the point where they are consigned to the realms of delusional fiction.
The controversies relating to the sheiks highlight just how readily truth trumps error. The great thing about silly views is that they can be readily contradicted. The sillier they are, the easier they are to rebut. But to do this, we first need to be aware of them.
Forcing outdated and dangerous views underground increases the risk that they will be adopted and acted on. This is because in such an environment they are not subject to counter analysis.
As a result of the now very public ramblings by the sheiks, one thing is for sure: their capacity to corrupt Muslim youth is significantly diminished. They have been publicly derided and ridiculed, to the point where even their most hardcore followers will at least question their warped views of the world.
That's why Sheik El-Din Hilaly is delusional if he thinks he can successfully stand against Premier Morris Iemma in the upcoming New South Wales State election.
The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is immune from criticism for his decision to record his message to the Catch the Fire Ministries. There is nothing offensive about his remarks and like all people he can associate with whatever groups he chooses.
It is hoped, however, that he would be equally willing to address Muslim groups in the future.
This is not to suggest that free speech is an absolute right. Not even close. Like all rights, it must yield to the weight of producing good outcomes.
There are many legitimate exceptions to the right to say whatever you want. We should not shout "fire" in a crowded cinema or spread lies which defame people and cause them harm. It is also wrong to say things that incite violence.
That is why the comments by Sheik Feiz stand apart. His remark about Jews is not only deeply offensive but liable to incite hatred towards them, which of course is the precursor to violence. His pronounced love of dying as a holy warrior exacerbates this risk.
The comments by Labor leader Kevin Rudd that Sheik Feiz should not return to Australia because he is no longer welcome are simplistic and flawed.
The opposite is true. While Australia does not have an extradition treaty with Lebanon, it should encourage Sheik Feiz to return to Australia. It is only if he returns to our shores that his liability for criminal offences relating to inciting violence can be properly determined.
While the right to free speech is more expansive than most commentators realise, violation of the right is also more serious than most people accept.
Like all people who have committed potentially serious offences, Sheik Feiz should be held accountable. As for the PM and Sheikh El-Din Hilaly, they get to revel in the splendours of free speech.
* Dr Mirko Bagaric is an author, lawyer and head of the Deakin Law School in Melbourne.
